"That the apology
received from Cr Edwards be accepted and leave of absence be granted."

2. PUBLIC
COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the
item to which they relate.

3.

Hearing of Submissions to the Representation
Review (18/1491)

The hearing of submissions is
recorded under item 5 i) Representation Review.

4.CONFLICT
OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Cr
Cousins declared a conflict of interest in item 5 viii) Local Alcohol Policy
and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

5. Recommendations to Council - 9 October
2018

i))

Representation
Review
(18/1412)

Mr
D Wilshere
presented submission SRR18/3.

Mr
Wilshere said that he supported decision making at community level and
community boards should be empowered to provide more services than under the
current system.

In
response to questions from members, Mr Wilshere said that the Harbour Ward
should include the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head. Residents
who lived there identified with Eastbourne and entered the area via
Burdan’s Gate, although some entered via Wainuiomata. He further said
that communities decided for themselves who they identified with and should
not be decided on a population basis.

Ms
Horrocks said that Petone and Eastbourne should remain as separate boards due
to the geographic access to the Eastbourne bays which would be cut off
geographically in the event of a major incident. The ECB had worked on an emergency
response over the last four years. She supported Mr Wilshere’s
submission to change the Harbour Ward boundary at Baring Head. She added that
community boards were cheaper to operate than councillors’ remuneration
and provided personal local responses to residents.

Mayor
Wallace rejoined the meeting at 6.00pm.

In
response to questions from members, Ms Horrocks said that first and second
tier representation were linked and when the first tier had been decided then
the second tier could be determined. She supported having boards across the
city and did not have a recommendation for the number of councillors
required.

Mr
Fisher said that the PCB strongly supported second tier representation. He
was concerned about a further review in 2021 and requested that it be
undertaken in 2024. The PCB did not support the amalgamation of the ECB and the
PCB.

Mr
Dyer said that Petone and Eastbourne had very different issues from each
other. Community boards represented good value and were cheaper than
councillors’ remuneration.

Mr
Branch said that PCB supported community boards across the city as communities
were decided by people identifying with smaller areas.

In
response to questions from members, Mr Fisher said that there were three
distinct areas under the PCB and each had their own issues. He believed more
community representation would help councillors with their work. In regard to
the definition of a “community of interest”, the community in the
PCB area would do their shopping and play sport in Petone.

Mr
M Young presented
submission SRR18/8.

Mr
Young supported having community boards across the city and for councillors
to be elected at large. He expressed dissatisfaction that the totals in the
survey data had not been presented showing the age groups. He believed the
younger age groups had supported electing councillors at large. He expressed
disappointment that the Facebook survey had limited respondents age to 18 or
over because 16 year olds would be eligible to vote in the next election.

In
response to questions from members, Mr Young said that community boards
provided good value for money. He further said that he had not considered a
change in the number of elected councillors.

Mr
Sinnott said that the data supported the retention of community boards. The
WCB also supported that the next review be in six years time, (2024), not in
three years time. A review in six years would allow sufficient time to
undertake research and to get it right.

In
response to questions from members, Mr Sinnott said that he supported one
community board per ward which would create challenges for the PCB and the
ECB.

Mr
M Shierlaw presented
submission SRR18/2.

Mr
Shierlaw said that he supported fully at large elections for Council. Other
similar sized cities, such as Hamilton, Palmerston North and Napier had fully
at large elections. Council needed to define how “communities of
interest” applied to the city. Furthermore, councillors had an interest
in keeping the existing voting structure as it was.

In
response to questions from members, Mr Shierlaw said that the WCB, ECB and PCB
were communities of interest. However, the suburbs of Moera and Gracefield
should not be under the PCB. Furthermore, Petone should pay for itself. He
further said that when comparing other cities to Lower Hutt, he had not
specifically taken into account distance from key points. However, he did not
consider that residents of Hutt City had onerous distances to travel to services.
He added that only 7% of residents supported at large elections, therefore,
he would accept mixed representation which had more support. He highlighted
that if a mixed system was adopted by Council, he would not appeal the
decision to the Local Government Commission. He believed that a change in the
first tier voting system would result in a higher voter turnout.

The
Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report.

In
response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager, Strategy and
Planning said that the research companies had assured her that an age
restriction was not included in the survey. She was disappointed that the
Council Facebook Representation Review page did require participants to be
over the age of 18. She further said that Councillors could make changes to
the representation review on the basis of the submissions made.

In
response to a question from a member, the General Counsel said that Council
should provide reasons for its amendments and also its rejections of
submissions.

Moved: (Cr
Cousins/Deputy Mayor Bassett)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) receives
the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt
City for the 2019 local authority elections; and

(ii) retains
the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for
representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority
elections as follows:

a)the Mayor be elected at large;

b)Council be comprised of 12 councillors with
two councillors elected from each of six wards;

c)the existing second tier representation
arrangements, three elected Community Board and four Community Panels,
remains; and

(iii) directs
officers to draft the final representation proposal for public notification.”

AMENDMENT MOVED:
(Cr Milne/Cr Lewis)

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) considers
the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt
City for the 2019 local authority elections; and

(ii) chooses to retain the initial draft
proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation
arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections with the
following amendment:

alteration
of the initial draft proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019
local authority elections to reflect the submissions made, that is, agrees to
adjust the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward boundaries as suggested in Submission
D by including the western side of the ridge out to
Baring Headin the Harbour
Ward.”

The amendment was declared lost by Division with the voting as follows:

For

Cr Lewis

Cr Lulich

Cr Milne

Against

Cr Bridson

Cr Barry

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Briggs

Cr Cousins

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Total: 3

Total: 7

Debate on the Amendment

Cr Milne said that according
to the submissions, the community of interest for the Baring Head area was Eastbourne
and not Wainuiomata, therefore there was a strong argument to move the
boundary.

Cr Bridson said that Council
had considered moving the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward
boundaries out to Baring Head at the last
representation review. However, some of the residents in that area related to
Wainuiomata and not to Eastbourne.

Mayor Wallace said that
further consultation needed to be undertaken with the affected people.

Cr Lulich said that
Eastbourne people had a strong interest in Baring Head and supported the
amendment.

Cr Barry said that more
information was required on the issue before Council made a decision.

Debate on the Substantive
Motion

Mayor Wallace said that the
community boards needed to show their worth and some of them were doing great
work. There had not been enough discussion with the community to make a
change from the status quo. He said that there could be a wider scope for a change
in representation in the future.

Cr Bridson said that it was
important to have a range of views at Council, that the City was well
represented and that communities were engaged in the process. A ward system
provided all of these facets, whereas an at large system risked having some
areas of the City unrepresented. She agreed with the submitter’s
comments that more people vote in an at large system, however, her view was
that it did not make much difference to the age, gender, ethnic mix of
councillors. She supported having geographic community boards across the city
which would represent their views to Council.

Cr Barry said that the
surveys had shown support for a change to the voting system and preference
for a mixed representation and community boards across the City. He considered
Councillors had a vested self-interest to keep the status quo. He supported
devolving power and decision making to community boards. He added that seven
community boards would cost about the same as the current councillors remuneration.
He further said that people did not know their regional councillors because
they were regionally elected, therefore, not comparable to local at large
elections.

Deputy Mayor Bassett said that
the ward system gave people in an area a chance to stand for their community,
whereas at large voting relied on name recognition. Residents of his Central
Ward frequently contacted him about issues that affected them. In contrast,
councillors from Greater Wellington Regional Council were elected at large
and were seldom contacted about issues.

Cr Lewis said that the survey
showed support for community boards across the city was 30% above the status
quo. A change was needed so that people would become interested in what was
happening in the city, which would increase the voter turnout. She supported
mixed representation for the first tier.

Cr Lulich said that there
should be more diversity in Council. However, greater diversity would be
accomplished with a proportional representation model not the first past the
post model. He supported retaining the PCB and ECB as separate boards because
they were different communities of interest. He further supported having
community boards across the City. He did not support community panels because
they were politically appointed and people wanted to elect their
representatives.

Cr Sutton said that she
supported the ward system. She said candidates would use party political
tickets when standing in an at large system. She further said that she was
not convinced of the value of community boards and that community panels
needed more time because they had only been operating for one year.

Cr Briggs said that the
results of community consultation had shown that people wanted a change to
the system, when taking into account the status quo bias. Furthermore,
whether elected by ward or at large, elected councillors would receive a
number of phone calls from the public. He supported enhanced community boards
across the City, and a mixed first tier system.

Cr Milne said that he
supported ward elections because councillors had a greater degree of
accountability compared to an at large election system. Furthermore,
residents voted for the Greater Wellington Regional Council using name
recognition, and he considered that he did not wish to see Council have a
similar election result. Elected community boards across the City would
result in 48 elected people. This would result in an overlarge bureaucracy,
slow down decision making and be unpopular with the public. Furthermore, it might
result in forcing community boards onto communities that did not want them, especially
the Western Ward. The cost of more elections would cost more than $500,000.

The Chair said that the
scientific part of the PublicVoice survey supported the status quo, but when
the data from the self-selected participants was included, it gave a
different result. Residents clearly wanted a fair and equitable system. She
further said that the Harbour Ward having two community boards was not fair
and equitable representation. She added that she had been elected in an at
large system, and in that system, the wider areas of the City were not well
represented. However, an at large system would benefit Eastbourne and Hutt
Central, and it would open the election to party politics, which would be
unpopular with citizens.

The Chair asked the General
Counsel to provide Councillors with further advice about whether Council
could review second tier in isolation to first tier, in 2021. She added that
depending upon the advice, Council may wish to review the representation in
six years’ time which would be 2024.

The Chair put the substantive motion to the vote in separate
parts. Part one was declared CARRIED by Division.

(i) chooses to retain the initial draft
proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation
arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections as follows:

that the existing second tier
representation arrangements, three elected Community Board and four Community
Panels, remains; and

(ii) asks
officers to provide further information regarding the process of reviewing
second tier representation again in 2021.”

For

Deputy Mayor Bassett

Cr Cousins

Cr Milne

Cr Sutton

Mayor Wallace

Against

Cr Bridson

Cr Barry

Cr Briggs

Cr Lewis

Cr Lulich

Total: 5

Total: 5

For the reasons that:

·there had not been adequate consultation to determine whether
changing the boundary at Baring Head would be supported by the affected
people;

·the PublicVoice survey supported the status quo for first
tier representation, once the data from self-selected participants had been
accounted for;

·councillors had a greater degree of accountability when elected
by ward compared to an at large election system;

·the ward system encouraged a diverse range of people to stand
for their local community;

·there was evidence that respondents wanted change to the second
tier, however, the community panels had only been operating for a year and
needed more time to prove themselves;

·more information was required about community panels before
Council could make a decision on whether to change the second tier system,
therefore, the current mix of community boards and community panels should
remain as they were for another term; and

·the survey results showed that people wanted a fair and
equitable system of representation, and the current mix of community boards
and community panels was not equitable, therefore, a further review in 2021
was required.

ii)

Heritage Policy
Review
(18/1387)

The Divisional Manager, Strategy and
Planning elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members,
the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning said that the definition of
heritage should be wide enough to cover more than just the list buildings included
in the District Plan. She said that once the policy had been developed, the
preliminary definition of “Heritage” could be altered to ensure that
it was congruent with the policy.

Moved: (Cr
Cousins/Mayor Wallace)

“That the Committee
recommends that Council:

(i) either:

(a) agrees
to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as a starting point for
the discussion of heritage in Lower Hutt; OR

(b) agrees
to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage with amendments;

(ii) either:

(a) approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy
review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report; OR

(b) approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy
review with amendments.”

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Deputy Mayor
Bassett/Cr Lewis)

“That the
Committee recommends that Council:

(i)agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as
follows:

“Heritage is
the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, and
culture. Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities,
meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage. Heritage
includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a
collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense
that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, and many other
elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as
historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage
is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and
discussion. What is worth saving? What can we, or should we, forget? What
memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past"
and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion
about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities,
and nations--is a valuable facet of public life”; and

(ii)approves the draft Terms of Reference for
the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report with the
following amendment:

that Council
establishes a Strategic Heritage Working Group comprising of three elected
members.”

(i)agrees to the proposed preliminary definition of heritage as
follows:

“Heritage
is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, and
culture. Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities,
meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage. Heritage
includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a
collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense
that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, and many other
elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as
historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage
is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and
discussion. What is worth saving? What can we, or should we, forget? What
memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past"
and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion
about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities,
and nations--is a valuable facet of public life”; and

(ii)approves the draft Terms of
Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the
report with the following amendment:

that Council establishes
a Strategic Heritage Working Group comprising of three elected members.”

“That the Committee
recommends that Council approves the updated Policy
on Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects subject to
an amendment to include the risk of ‘not being able to exit the
property at an acceptable price’.”

For the reasons that this policy has
been updated in line with a series of interviews on this matter and the views
of the majority of interviewees has been captured.

“That the Committee
recommends that Council agrees to an easement over the reserve property at
52N Stanley Street, Wainuiomata being Lot 2, DP 53598, in favour of the
property at 46A Stanley Street for the rights to drain water and sewage.”

(i) notes that the owners of 57 Wellington Road have approached
Council to acquire the drainage reserve adjacent to their property;

(ii) notes that Council has previously agreed to similar proposals
earlier this year in Wellington Road and Moohan Street; and

(iii) agrees to sell the piece of drainage reserve, as shown in the
plan, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, being part of Lot 98 DP14784,
subject to the creation of an appropriate drainage easement in favour of
Council.”

(i) agrees
to stop unformed legal road adjacent to the Wainuiomata Hill Road, identified
on the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the report, as SO 25314 shaded orange
and the additional triangular section shaded green;

(ii) agrees
that once the legal road is stopped that the new property be declared and
classified as scenic reserve; and

(iii) agrees to declare as
legal road the triangular section of scenic reserve shown on the plan,
attached as Appendix 1 to the report, shaded blue.”

vii)

Wainuiomata Marae
Development
(18/1451)

Speaking under public comment, Mr S
Olsen, representing Wainuiomata Marae, said that he supported the
proposal. He noted that discussions with Housing New Zealand were to build
about 32 affordable homes on the property which would benefit the children.

In response to questions from members, Mr
Olsen said that he supported the officer’s recommendations. He advised
there were a lot of people needing homes and the Marae had an obligation to
their people. He added that Housing New Zealand would lease the land off the
Marae.

The Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens
elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member,
the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens said that he would report back on
the status of whether rates would be payable on the developed land.

Moved: (Mayor
Wallace/Cr Briggs)

“That the Committee
recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the
Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand
for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that
it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii) notes that the Trust
wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on
Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land
surrounding the Marae;

(iii) agrees to consider
options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking
the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of
the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993; and

(iv) directs officers to publicly
notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve
situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the
existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata
Marae Trust.”

Amendment Moved: (Cr
Milne/Cr Cousins)

“That the Committee
recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the
Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand
for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that
it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii) notes that the Trust
wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on
Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land
surrounding the Marae;

(iii) agrees to consider
options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking
the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of
the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;

(iv) directs officers to publicly
notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve
situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the
existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata
Marae Trust; and

(v)asks officers to report to Council on whether or not this development
will be liable for rates.”

Mayor Wallace said that he
supported the opportunity for the Marae to partner with the Ministry of
Social Development for this development. He added that Council needed some
clarity about whether rates would be paid on the property.

Cr Barry expressed support for the
proposal because it made sense to use the land.

Cr Milne, in his right of
reply, said that he supported more houses in Wainuiomata, as properties
funded by Housing New Zealand would pay rates. However, if there was a
problem with the property being liable for rates, then an alternative
process, such as a lease, could resolve the issue.

(i) notes
that the Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New
Zealand for Papakāinga housing on
part of the land that it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii) notes that
the Trust wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose
reserve on Parkway in regard to enabling a cohesive development for all of
the land surrounding the Marae;

(iii) agrees to
consider options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of
revoking the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in
terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993;

(iv)directs officers to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the
reserve status of the local purpose reserve situated at 9 Wellington Road,
for the purpose of adding this land to the existing area of the Maori
reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata Marae Trust; and

(v)asks
officers to report to Council on whether or not this development will be
liable for rates.”

viii)

Local Alcohol
Policy (LAP)
(18/1416)

Cr Cousins declared a conflict of
interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item. Mayor Wallace
assumed the Chair.

The Principal Policy Advisor elaborated
on the report. He tabled an update to page four of the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP),
attached as page 21 to the minutes.

The General Counsel said that the appeals
to the LAP had been settled and this would be the final procedural step to
bring the LAP into force.

(i) notes
that the appeals on the amendment to the Hutt City Local Alcohol Policy (LAP)
have been settled and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA)
notified Council that the appeals are at an end on 7 August 2018;

(ii) notes
that, pursuant to section 87(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
(SASA), this means the amendment to the LAP was adopted 30 days after Council
publicly notified it on 29 August 2017, being 28 September 2017;

(iii) instructs
officers to give the required further public notice that the amendment to the
LAP has been adopted under section 90(1) of the SASA, in the form required by
clause 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations
2013;

(iv) resolves
that the amendment to the LAP attached as Appendix 1 to the report, will come
into force:

(a) for the amendments to element 1.2, on 19 October 2018;

(b) for the amendments to element 1.1, on 25 January 2019; and

(v) instructs
officers to carry out all other matters required by the SASA and associated
regulations, including notifying affected parties under s90(5) of the Act,
giving ARLA a copy of the amended LAP under s91(2) of the Act and ensuring
the amendment LAP is published and displayed in accordance with clause 20 of
the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013.”

For the
reason that Council needs to complete the legal formalities associated with
the adoption of the LAP.

ix)

Smoke-free Policy
- Report Back on Smokefree Areas (18/1426)

Cr Cousins resumed the Chair.

The Activator elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member,
the Activator said that Council had received one registered complaint about
someone smoking in the street.

Cr Briggs said that the Smoke-free Policy
was to bring about social change and expressed support for Healthy Families
relationships with communities.

(i) notes the report on the second 12 months of implementing the
Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016-19;

(ii) approves the recommendation of the Wainuiomata Community Board
to designate the area of Queen Street as a smokefree area as outlined
in yellow in the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(iii) notes
that officers will continue to explore designating areas in suburban shopping
centres as smokefree;

(iv) in
2018, officers are exploring the following areas: the CBD, Jackson Street,
Taita, Naenae and Moera; and

(v) notes
that officers will report back to Council with recommendations in relation to
these areas.”

For the reasons that this option of designating the area of Queen Street as a
smokefree area will increase the number of smokefree outdoor public places
with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and
socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is
greatest. Exploration into designating the CBD,
Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae and Moera as smokefree areas, is because these
are centres that either have high foot traffic or high rates of smoking.

x)

Alcohol Ban at
Days Bay Beach for Concert (18/1409)

The Commercial Events Developer
elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members,
the Commercial Events Developer said that the proposed alcohol ban was to
prevent sideloading, and to limit an incident occurring over the period the
event would be held. He further said that Police would be patrolling the
event.

“That
the Committee recommends that Council approves a
temporary Alcohol Free Zone and relevant temporary signage along the Days Bay
Beach between 12:00 midday and 9pm on 21 January 2019, for the area marked
yellow on the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report.”

For the
reasons that there is no restriction on the
consumption of wholesale alcohol on Days Bay beach between 5:00am and 9:00pm,
this increases the probability of anti-social and unsafe behaviour for the
duration of the concert. Council’s Promotions and Events team,
the NZ Police and the Chair of the Eastbourne Community Board unanimously
agree an alcohol ban on the Days Bay Beach 21 January, 2019 is the most
sensible action.

6.

Strategic Waste Reviews (18/1433)

Report No. PRC2018/4/250 by the
Sustainability and Resilience Manager

The Sustainability and Resilience Manager
elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member,
the Sustainability and Resilience Manager said that waste collection outcomes
could be incorporated into the tender process.

(i) notes that
officers are undertaking reviews and are developing business cases in three
waste management areas: kerbside collection, a potential resource recovery
centre, and hazardous waste, with the results due by March 2019;

(ii) notes that
officers have commenced a review of Council’s Refuse Collection and
Disposal Bylaw;

(iii) notes that officers
are planning to conduct a workshop with Councillors in early 2019 to assist
in problem definition and options analysis for the new bylaw; and

(iv) notes that a new
bylaw will need to be in place by no later than 1 April 2020.”

The Divisional Manager Regulatory Services
and Emergency Management and the Building and Quality Assurance Manager elaborated
on the report.

Members noted that all of the buildings with
unreinforced masonry facades or parapets had now completed structural
engineering work. The members recorded their appreciation to officers for
their expeditious work in that area.

“That the public be excluded from the following
parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

11. Review
of Private Use of Public Land Policy (18/1027)

The general subject of each matter to be
considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this
resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section
48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for
the passing of this resolution are as follows:

(A)

(B)

(C)

General subject of the matter to be considered.

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to
each matter.

Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution.

Review of Private Use of Public Land Policy.

The withholding of the information is necessary to
protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)).

The withholding of the information is necessary to
enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage,
commercial activities (s7(2)(h)).

That the public conduct of the relevant part of the
proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of
information for which good reason for withholding exist.

This resolution is made in
reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by
section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the
whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as
specified in Column (B) above.”